Wednesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "What parts of your life/lifestyle are unapproved by DCUM standards?" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster provided no further explanation about the topic of this thread beyond what was in the title. This is somewhat baffling to me because I am not aware of DCUM having approved standards. Rather, from its inception, DCUM has been known for the lack of agreement among its posters. If any conceivable difference of opinion can be found, DCUM posters will argue about it. As a result, I suspect that "standards" in this case are simply something that one or more random posters like while a similar or greater number of random posters don't like. DCUM almost never speaks with one voice and, frankly, if it did it would be rather boring. At any rate, I am fairly certain that "standards" is not the proper term to use in this context. The original poster's examples are vacationing in Wildwood, NJ and Ocean City, MD every summer. This basically makes my point. I don't know anything about Wildwood but a quick search on our travel forum shows that it has a number of fans due to its boardwalk. To the extent posters didn't like it, it's because they prefer Ocean City, NJ. As for Ocean City, MD, just about everyone in the DC area seems to have a love/hate relationship with it. Everyone hates it but everyone still goes there. Frankly, if DCUM had standards, this thread wouldn't meet them. Almost immediately it turns into posters simply posting snide remarks or non-sequiturs. One poster, for instance, claims that DCUM hates mothers. Very keen insight about a website dominated by mothers. And, of course, racists seize the opportunity to come out of their holes. True to form, multiple arguments appear to have broken out though I can't say much about them because I can't bring myself to read more than a few posts. I feel no end of disappointment about threads like this that I consider complete wastes of time.

If the previous thread was not enough to start this day off on the wrong foot, the next one was almost guaranteed to do the trick. Posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum and titled, "Why are women so heightist, and then complain when it turns out that a man lied about his height?", the original poster complains that women screen by height on dating apps and, therefore, the only way to get a first date is to lie. Full disclosure: I'm a short guy. Short enough that a significant number of posts in this thread are complaining about "short" guys who are four or five inches taller than me. So, really short. While I can understand from where the original poster is coming, I can't condone lying about one's height. Not only is it morally wrong, but dates that begin with the realization that you have been dishonest are rarely going to end well. So, even on the practical level this is a bad tactic. Moreover, based on the attitudes displayed in the original poster's subsequent posts, the poster's height is likely the least of the poster's worries. While a few of those responding attempt to be helpful to the original poster and provide advice for improving what is apparently a frustrating dating experience, most of the thread is full of sniping. Women compare screening for height to men screening for age or weight. The corollary to short men appears to be fat women, with both apparently being untouchables in the dating scene. I am not offended that many women have preferences for taller guys. We like what we like. But, I am a bit disappointed by some of the negative characteristics attributed to short men. However, the really aggravating thing about this thread is that despite the convincing caricature of a resentful short man the original poster perpetrates, the whole things appears to be a troll, or at best very misleading. The first clue about this was a post by the original poster criticizing men for being "weightist". Between "heightist" women and "weightist" men, I think we have found this poster's suffix of choice, though I am not sure we have nailed down the poster's pronouns. While the poster never explicitly claimed to be male, that was the implication that most posters seemed to accept. But just hours before starting this thread, the original poster started another one about being seven weeks pregnant. Imagine showing up to a date only to find that the guy you are meeting is not only shorter than advertised, but also a pregnant woman? No wonder this poster is having such bad luck with dating.

The next most active thread was titled, "Rose Hanbury and Prince William" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. I have no idea who Rose Hanbury is and no interest in finding out. But, the original poster wants to know whether we think she had an affair with Prince William. That's another thing about which I don't care. But, other posters apparently do care. I haven't read much of this thread about which, you can guess, I don't care. However, some posters seem to think they had an affair and some think that they didn't. A couple of posters are certain that not only did they have an affair, but that they have a child together. About the only redeeming thing I can say about this thread is that while posters ended up talking about Kate quite a bit, they don't appear to have gotten sidetracked to talking about Meghan. That's almost unheard of in a British Royal Family thread on DCUM. But, beyond that, I have nothing to say about this thread.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)" forum. Titled, "Court: TJ's New Admission Policy Does Not Discriminate", the thread documents another chapter in the long and winding odyssey of the new admissions policy at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, or "TJ". I don't like how this thread started with the original poster saying little about the new developments and, instead, snarking that this would upset the "Annandale Asians". Asians may or may not have been discriminated against by TJ's admissions policy, but they certainly are the subject of considerable abuse on DCUM. It's unfortunate that the original poster singles them out. As for the details of what happened, the original poster expects us to follow a link to the Washington Post rather than bothering to explain them himself. Those details are that this is part of a lawsuit filed by a parent group against the Fairfax County Public Schools Board of Education claiming that the new admissions policy was discriminatory, particularly against Asians. A lower court judge previously ruled in favor of the parents group, but, in the latest development, that decision was overturned by an appeals court. The parents group has said that it will appeal and hopes that the case will be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court previously ruled on an emergency request to allow the new policy to remain in place while the case was being adjudicated. Three justices disagreed with that decision. The controversy about TJ's admissions is long-running and there are countless DCUM threads about it. The dispute arises from revisions to TJ's admissions polices approved by the Board in 2020. Instead of an admissions exam, a more "holistic" approach which did not consider race was adopted. The new policy has resulted in the admission of a more diverse group of students, but opponents contend that less qualified students are taking places that would have otherwise gone to Asians if academic ability had been the primary factor. These threads are always tarnished by posts arguing that non-Asian students are less prepared and not as strong academically and contrary posts claiming that Asians are little more than programmed robots nurtured from birth to perform well on standardized tests. The racial stereotypes employed by both sides are disappointing and unfair to the students involved.